Stoke upon Tern Neighbourhood Development Plan Consultation Statement April 2018
Contents
Introduction
Summary of Community Engagement
Pre-Submission Consultation (Regulation 14)
Appendix A – List of Statutory and other Consultees
Appendix B - Consultation Comments Received and Response Made
Introduction
This Consultation Statement summarises the community engagement programme and the Regulation 14 consultation that were undertaken for the Stoke upon Tern Neighbourhood Development Plan (2017 - 2033). It shows how the requirements of Regulations 14 and 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 have been satisfied.
Summary of Community Engagement
Stoke upon Tern Parish Council developed a programme of community and stakeholder engagement and this has been used to guide the process of producing the Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council recognises that the Neighbourhood Plan must reflect the needs of the community and the locality and the Council has sought to communicate with the residents and business owners in a timely and effective manner and to inform and actively engage with them throughout the process. The community engagement carried out on behalf the Parish Council in producing the draft Neighbourhood Plan is summarised in the community engagement table.
The strategy for community engagement
Throughout the preparation of the plan we regularly consulted and engaged the community. Since the launch in June 2015 we have:
1. Provided regular updates in the local newsletter, which is published 4 times a year. 2. Used the Parish Council website to provide information about for the neighbourhood plan. 3. Produced a community questionnaire in September 2015, a business questionnaire in January 2016 and a housing needs survey in June 2016. 4. Gave an update at every Parish Council Meeting since 2015. 5. Held Community Meetings and Workshops between March and June 2016, as is set out in the table overleaf.
The Neighbourhood Plan preparation has been led by the Stoke upon Tern Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group which is made up of Parish Councillors, supported by neighbourhood planning specialists, Urban Vision Enterprise.
Who was targeted?
Throughout the Neighbourhood Plan process we have tried to engage with the Stoke upon Tern residents at all stages. The process began with an announcement of future events in the Parish Newsletter which is delivered to all household. This was followed by a promotional stall at the Wistanswick village fete and subsequently flyers and questionnaires, again circulated to all residents,
were used to inform the process. Workshops and meetings by invitation were held with local Stakeholders in October 2015.
A questionnaire covering the likely issues and aspirations of the local community was circulated to all households in September 2015; opinions were canvassed in a business questionnaire to all local businesses in January and February 2016, and subsequently a detailed Housing Needs Survey was sent out in June 2016.
Outcomes/Feedback
The opinions and comments arising from community engagement exercises help form the basis on which this plan was written. Likewise, the policies are formed both on community engagement and based on a clear planning rationale, underpinned by relevant data/evidence.
The main issues emerging were affordable housing/downsizing, including a wish for bungalows, provision for travellers, and improvements in Broadband provision.
Pre-Submission Consultation (Regulation 14)
Following the completion of the draft Neighbourhood Plan it was posted on the Parish Council website and hard copies were placed in various locations within the Parish and the surrounding area. A Consultation Response Form was delivered to all households within the parish, detailing the whereabouts of the document and providing a variety of means of return for said responses. 2 drop- in sessions were held in November 2017 to provide further information and to answer any questions.
Advice was sought from Shropshire Council about an agreed list of statutory and other consultees and they were all individually approached by email and directed to the draft Neighbourhood Plan. The list of consultees is found in Appendix A.
Local businesses were approached directly by members of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.
Consultation Comments made and responses
Comments were logged and analysed by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and decisions made on any amendments necessary to the Plan. Details of all these comments and decisions made can be found in Appendix B.
Conclusions
The policies identified in the Neighbourhood Plan have arisen from the concerns and wishes of the community of Stoke upon Tern. This is shown by the small number of consultees who have raised concerns. This reflects a general consensus and indicates that the Plan is largely non-controversial, which we hope will be demonstrated at the referendum.
Appendix A
Statutory and Other Consultees
Name Title Organisation Address Rebecca Lead Catchment Severn Trent Severn Trent McLean Planner Stuart Planning Manager, Sport England West Midlands – Central Hub Morgans Rachael A. Chief Planner / The Coal Authority 200 Lichfield Lane Bust Principal Manager Berry Hill Planning and Local Mansfield Authority Liaison Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG Alison Heine Planner Heine Planning 10 Whitehall Dr, Hartford, Northwich, Cheshire CW8 1SJ A. R. Planning Officer National Federation Ladygrove Mill, Two Dales Matlock DE4 Yarwood, of Gypsy Liaison FG DipTP, Groups MRTPI, Peter Boland Historic Places Historic England The Axis 10 Holliday Street Birmingham Advisor B1 1TG Graeme Senior Planning Environment West Midlands Area Irwin Officer - Sustainable Agency Places
Dewi Forward Plans Dwr Cymru Welsh Kinmel Park Depot Royal Welsh Avenue Griffiths Officer Developer Water Bodelwyddan LL18 5TQ Services Diane Clarke Assoc RTPI Town Network Rail Floor 1 Square One 4 Travis Street Planning Technician Manchester, M1 2NY LNW Jodie Senior Defence Kingston Road, Sutton Coldfield, West McCabe Town Planner Infrastructure Midlands, B75 7RL Environment & Organisation Planning Support David Service Delivery Telford & Wrekin Development Management Business, Fletcher Manager Council Development & Employment, Telford & Wrekin Council, PO BOX457 1st Floor, Wellington Civic Offices, Telford TF2 2FH Jane Evans Clerk Hodnet Parish 51, Longford Turning, Market Drayton Council TF9 3PF Cllr Len Chairman Childs Ercall Parish Ercall Grange, St Michaels Way, Childs Sambrook Council Ercall TF9 2DB Jane Evans Clerk Moreton Saye 51, Longford Turning, Market Drayton Parish Council TF9 3PF Graham Clerk Sutton upon Tern 18, Mendip Close, Little Dawley, Telford Bould Parish Council TF4 3JG
Appendix B
Consultation Comments Received and Comments Made
A. National and Statutory Bodies
Environment Agency Letter 2nd October 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP Neighbourhood Plans should The site allocations were made Depends on discussion with offer robust confirmation that by the Local Plan, rather than Shropshire Council. development is not impacted by this NP. So flood risk issues flooding and that there is should already be covered by sufficient waste water the Local Plan. This should be infrastructure in place to discussed with Shropshire accommodate growth for the Council. duration of the plan period.
The Flood Map provides an indication of ‘fluvial’ flood risk only. You are advised to discuss matters relating to surface water (pluvial) flooding with the drainage team at Shropshire Council in their role as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). The LLFA also has responsibility for local flood risk management and may hold flooding information that is not identified on our Flood Map
The Clive Barracks Community Hub (500 houses), some watercourses have not been modelled on our Flood Maps. The Clive Barracks hub is bisected by a small un-modelled watercourse which should be considered moving forward with Plan.
The Environment Agency also included a consultation pro-forma, setting out sources of environmental information and containing advice on issues like flood risk and climate change.
Sport England Letter 13th November 2018
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP The response highlights NPPF Including promoting healthy Consider amending vision policy on sport and its own communities in the vision statement to include reference guidance. statement may be desirable. to supporting ‘healthy communities’. Supports the vision statement, although it would be beneficial to also include within it a reference to promoting healthy communities to be consistent with guidance in section 8 of the NPPF.
A suitably worded reference Neighbourhood plans do not Consider adding text to that makes the link between have to include policies on all recognise the link between provision and enhancement of subjects. However, this may be sport and recreation facilities to sport and recreation to the a useful addition. health and well-being. health and well-being of the neighbourhood would ensure consistency with existing Development Plan documents and the NPPF … Consider amending SUTA3 to make reference to sport and … SUTA3 should make it clear recreation. that the reference to green space includes sports and recreation facilities including playing fields, again to be consistent with the Core Strategy and the NPPF …
Dutton Close Community Hub - The site allocation was made by This was more a matter for the The site has been previously the Local Plan, rather than this Local Plan, which was adopted used as playing field (see NP. It would be useful to check in 2015. below). It is acknowledged that the Local Plan allocation to see this was several years ago, if the requirements of however Sport England would Paragraph 74 of the NPPF were need to be convinced that it met. Note, the Local Plan does not constitute playing allocation required retention of field for which there would be a the recreation ground. Suggest presumption against its loss discussing this with the LPA. unless it was demonstrated to be surplus. Need to make clear that the NP is not amending the LP site … Sport England therefore allocation. objects to the allocation of the Community Hub in the Neighbourhood Plan. Either the
allocated playing fields should be removed from the allocation, or suitable amendments made to the Plan to address these issues.
Clive Barracks Community Hub Sport England’s statement that Clarification of the status of this - There are concerns that the this major development is not site in the SAMdev is required. identification of up to 500 covered by the SAMdev additional dwellings could appears to contradict Page 24 result in the loss of sports and of the NP document. This recreation facilities without needs to be clarified. appropriate justification or compensation for their loss. In the absence of an up to date evidence base that identifies it If necessary, the neighbourhood to be surplus the playing field plan could highlight any Local should be protected from Discuss with LPA possible Plan requirements for development … contributions (Section 106). contributions to sport/recreation. This could … In addition, it is noted that include making reference to the this major development Place Plan as a tool for opportunity is not included implementation. within the adopted Core Strategy or the SAMdev, but will bring with it a level of housing growth that may generate additional infrastructure needs for sport and recreation. The plan should cross refer to policy CS9 of the Core Strategy relates to Infrastructure Contributions to be consistent with the Core Strategy.
Sport England therefore objects to the allocation of the Community Hub in the Neighbourhood Plan. Either the allocated playing fields should be removed from the allocation, or suitable amendments made to the Plan to address these issues.
Policy CAF1 - The requirement The policy is very specific and Suggest modified policy for an assessment of the level prescriptive in incorporating requiring developers to assess of formal outdoor space the exact FIT standard. The local provision and local need to (including sports facilities) that needs-based approach accompany planning proposals should deliver is advocated by Sport England applications.
generally supported. However, would fit NPPF policy more the reference to this being in closely. This could be based on the line with Fields in Trust following: guidance, which results in the application of a standards Policy CAF1: Local Play, Sports based approach is not and Recreational Facilities supported, as this does not deliver the provision of sports New residential development and recreational facilities must be supported by a (including playing fields) to balanced range of play, sport meet identified needs. The and recreational facilities, NPPF is silent on the issue of existing or new. The capacity of local standards and Sport existing facilities and the England does not advocate the additional demand created by use of local standards. Rather, new development must be the guidance in the NPPF is that considered and addressed. requirements for open space, sports and recreation facilities Where residential sites are are informed by a robust and developed incrementally, a up-to-date evidence (see masterplan must be prepared in paragraphs 70, 73 and 74 of the advance to ensure that the NPPF). A clear understanding of development of the complete current and future community site will be adequately sports facility needs for the supported by play, sports and area is essential to ensure that recreational facilities. the Neighbourhood Plan accords with the NPPF. The Shropshire Playing Pitch Strategy adopted in 2010 is not considered to be reliable as an up to date evidence base …
… Sport England considers that this evidence should be prepared, and for policy CAF1 to be amended to explicitly refer to it, so that the policy requires planning applications for housing to be supported by an assessment of the level of formal indoor and outdoor sports and recreation facilities (including playing fields) to be provided to meet the needs of the development, that reflects the up to date evidence base.
The Neighbourhood Plan does It is not for the NP to update The policy amendment not identify how it relates to local authority strategies. described above will help to Shropshire’s Implementation address. Plan and Market Drayton Place
Plan, which would need to be updated to reflect the development proposed in the Neighbourhood Plan. In the absence of an up-to-date evidence base, it is not possible to demonstrate that the identified projects in the existing Shropshire Implementation Plan and Market Drayton Place Plan will address the infrastructure needs of the development identified in the Neighbourhood Plan …
Historic England Letter 26th October 2017
Comments and Suggested Amendments Comments Suggested Modification for the NDP Historic England is supportive of the objectives set out No change. in the Plan and the content of the document and particularly commend its’ stated intention to:
“preserve and enhance Stoke upon Tern’s rural character (and) ensure that all new development in Stoke upon Tern is designed to high standards (and) responds and contributes to the distinctive built character of its setting”.
… Overall the plan reads as a well-considered, concise and fit for purpose document which we consider takes a suitably proportionate approach to the historic environment of the Parish”.
On a minor point we note that the wording of Policy D1, The wording of D1 Amend D1 as in its second sentence, appears to be incomplete. (first paragraph) described. should be amended to make a simple statement that development should comply with the following requirements. The reference to the design and access statement could be
moved to the end of the policy.
As a general point, the Parish clearly has a strong Need to consider Consider adding agricultural base and numerous historic farmsteads. whether the design farmsteads to the Whilst we support, as the Plan suggests, the conversion policy is adequate design policy, to beneficial uses, including employment uses, of without setting out specific redundant historic buildings we are concerned to modification. requirements ensure that this is done in a sensitive manner. Therefore rather than we suggest that you consider the inclusion of the It is poor practice to referring to an following Policy wording in an appropriate section of refer to external external document. the Neighbourhood Plan viz: documents, which may be revoked or Or, add notes to “Redevelopment, alteration or extension of historic altered during the the existing design farmsteads and agricultural buildings within the Parish lifetime of the plan. policy clarifying should be sensitive to their distinctive character, how it relates to materials and form. Due reference should be made and The design policy farmsteads. full consideration be given to the Shropshire could be amended, Farmsteads Characterisation Project”. setting out specific Suggested requirements for Additional Text for
The Parish contains Historic Farmsteads and where applications are submitted for these Policy D1 should ensure high-quality materials are used, which could include well-finished and durable modern materials or authentic historic materials, including authentic vernacular materials such as Staffordshire Blues. It would not include ‘mock’ traditional materials, such as plastic fascias or standard concrete roof tiles.
Coal Authority Letter 13th November 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP No comment No change.
Network Rail email 4th October 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP No comments. No change.
Defence Infrastructure email 30th November 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for Amendments the NDP We support and welcome the The figure of 500 houses came No change. references to Clive Barracks in from the Local Planning the document, but would like to Authority, and it is outwith the see a higher number of Neighbourhood Plan process to dwellings referred to in the change the LPA numbers. With Local Housing Need section on the proviso that the capacity of page 24. The discussions with the site will be dependent on Shropshire Council to date have technical studies and indicated a figure more like masterplanning, it is not 600+ on the Clive Barracks site considered necessary to change (with further housing provision the text. on MOD land across the A41 outside the Neighbourhood Plan Area). Clearly the final capacity of the site will be dependent on the outcome of the technical studies and masterplanning work we are procuring, however we would like to see a reference to “in the region of 600 additional dwellings” within the Neighbourhood Plan rather that up to 500.
Severn Trent Letter 9th January 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP The letter is mainly about Severn Trent’s approach to planning applications and also building regulation matters. There are no actual comments on the content of the neighbourhood plan.
However, the letter does state SUDS and permeable surfaces Policy D1 could be amended to that: could be referred to by policy include SUDS (Sustainable in the NP. urban drainage systems) and We expect surface water to be permeable surfaces. managed in line with the Government’s Water Strategy, Suggested Additional Text for Future Water. The strategy sets Policy D1: out a vision for more effective management of surface water to Bullet Point 17: Ensuring deal with the dual pressures of permeable surfaces in hard climate change and housing landscaped areas; development. Surface water Bullet Point 18: Incorporating needs to be managed Sustainable Urban Drainage sustainably. For new Systems designed as part of the developments we would not landscaping scheme. expect surface water to be conveyed to our foul or combined sewage system and, where practicable, we support the removal of surface water already connected to foul or combined sewer.
Severn Trent also submitted a This data is mainly relevant to No change. spreadsheet giving data (water the local planning authority cycle study). with regard to site allocations and planning applications.
Welsh Water email 2nd October 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP The Neighbourhood Plan area No change. falls outside of our operational area, as such we have no comment to make.
B. Local Organisations
National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups Letter 13th November 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP We commend the Parish Council No change. for recognising the requirement to address the needs of the Travelling community. It is refreshing to find a Parish Council which is prepared to include such a policy in its neighbourhood Plan.
We fully support the inclusion of Policy H3, which we consider to be a fair and balanced approach to addressing this need.
The Future of Rural Bus Services in Shropshire Letter 20th November 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP I would be very grateful indeed This is a request for information No change. if you would send me any rather than a representation. information you already have available on bus services in your council’s area and how you would like to see them improved. This could be new bus routes, new ways of providing bus services, increased frequencies and additional services in the evenings, bank holidays and weekends.
C. Local Authorities and Parish Councils
Telford and Wrekin Council email 21st November 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP
No issues to raise. No change.
Moreton Parish Council email 17th October 2017
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP No comment. No change.
Hodnet Parish Council email 31st October
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP No comments. No change.
Sutton Parish Council email 27th November
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP Support policies, no objections. No change.
Emails (9th and 10th November) were also included from Leonard Sambrook of Childs Ercall PC, but these appear to be correspondence rather than representations on the NP in response to the Regulation 14 consultation.
D. Private Sector
Heine Planning email 13th November
Comments and Suggested Comments Suggested Modification for the Amendments NDP Welcome the inclusion of Policy The NP could identify Consider modifying the policy to: H3 for Travellers but: where sites are, though this Amended Policy: Permission will be consider the Plan may effectively allocate considered for Gypsy and Traveller should detail where sites are and how large such sites. Accommodation on the two sites, they are the Paddocks, Warrant Road (8 the level of need should Suggest making the pitches) and Abdo Hill Farm (4 be informed by need evidence and rationale pitches) and marked on plan assessments but this is section to the policy even Existing Sites providing that it: not a ceiling limit, only a clearer, placing emphasis guide.
Consider the on the need to avoid requirement for sites to compromising the rural The design and layout be no greater than 5 character of the area. is appropriate to the rural pitches to be unnecessary given the context and include a recent approval for the landscaping plan; 8 pitch site at The Each site should not exceed Paddocks Warrant the existing capacity ; Road where is it was and agreed this was Demonstrate that proposals acceptable. Consider there is no do not dominate the justification to limit countryside setting. existing sites (where ever they areas they are Also suggest make clearer and not identified) to no update the planning rationale to more than 8 pitches. cover:
1) Policy is based on rural character. 2) Include reference to the 2 planning appeals and sites that the policy relates to. 3) The planning appeals meet local need for not only the ‘fair share’ of the Neighbourhood Area but also a majority of the need for Shropshire.